Forum:Category changes
As Acer wrote me, I really need to get some community feedback on the category changes I've been making - just because they seem logical to me doesn't mean they are to everyone else, or that they couldn't use some input. Also I have some new ideas I wanted to bounce off y'all: # Locations - basically the changes I've been making, with categories for seasons/books (Day 1 locations, Day 2 locations, etc.) and one for Mentioned locations. Was going to split the mentioneds into separate seasons like for characters, but there's a number of pages like Iraq that would get unnecessarily cluttered. # More descriptive categories for actual places - Buildings, Residences, Addresses, etc. The locations categories have been massively lacking in my opinion compared to the ones for Characters; there's enough of each to justify it, I think. # I'd like to rename Category:CTU characters to something more in-universe, like "CTU employees" or "CTU personnel." I don't know if "characters" is used for other groups like the FBI but I would change those too. Something that could be done with the bot. # I don't think there should be a distinction between Category:Retired U.S. military personnel and U.S. military personnel; there's no precedent for it anywhere else on the site. Instead I would have one category, United States military personnel, with subcategories for United States Army personnel, United States Navy personnel, etc. That's all for right now. In general I want to expand on the pretty generic categories we've had since the beginning, as there are enough articles to start specializing. Thoughts? --Pyramidhead (talk) 00:33, June 13, 2013 (UTC) :This is great stuff, bud, glad you brought it up for extra input. I don't have much to really add, but here's my 2 cents anyways: :#Sounds good! :#Agreed! :#This is a good idea; I do personally prefer "CTU personnel" over "employees". If you use the bot, please just make sure it doesn't jumble the current order of categories, or that it eliminates the alphabetical sorts such as |Sikes, Randall if one exists. :#I do disagree on this one, because some characters are known during their appearances as active players in the military apparatus, and others, it was totally in their past. For example, in my opinion if we had a "Marines" category for Joe Prado, it would totally be misrepresenting the character and the article. This is why I find the "Retired" category so useful. 03:57, June 14, 2013 (UTC) ::Yeah I agree with bringing the locations categories in line with the character ones - I don't see that splitting the mentioned categories would lead to more clutter than the amount on the USA, Los Angeles or Downtown Los Angeles articles - the only question is whether there's enough mentioned locations to warrant splitting it which I think there probably are. We should probs decide this before changing them over to save work. ::And yeah, changing the CTU characters to personnel would be good. I'd agree with using a bot to rename them as long as it retained what Blue Rook said - also only use the bot for automated edits so we know not to check them, manual edits on your regular account. ::I don't have particularly strong feelings on the last one, I probably agree with what Blue Rook said about the category representing how the character appeared on the show, and also not sure the military personnel category is particularly big enough to warrant splitting--Acer4666 (talk) 11:43, June 14, 2013 (UTC) :::Other than the unneeded military change, this looks rather fabulous.--Gunman6 (talk) 21:09, June 24, 2013 (UTC) ::So after doing some of the grunt work I agree that it may be best to split up Mentioned locations as well. There's certainly going to be enough of them. --Pyramidhead (talk) 18:07, June 25, 2013 (UTC) ::: Pyramidhead thanks for doing all this. I definitely like Antagonists by affiliation and Characters by affiliation, we've been missing those for awhile. And I would probably support breaking out the service branches by character category if there were many more articles, but there's far too few. (Additionally, the differentiation among the branches is never really significant to the plot: those characters are really just "the military".) Fr what it's worth I still do stand by the retired category, since categories are OOU and implying, for example, that Curtis Manning is an active serviceman in his categories would be misleading. 04:19, October 11, 2013 (UTC)